This study seeks to find appropriate landscape patterns of campus based on students’ preferences. A photo questionnaire containing scenes of different types of campus landscapes was distributed among 200 students in University of Tabriz, Iran. The results emphasized the importance of vegetation, seating areas and water features of campuses. Also, students prefer open spaces consisting of lawn and grass (M = 3.31, S.D. = 1.00). Students also prefer a campus, which has a natural base, landscape elements and seating places, while the least preferred (M = 2.96, S.D. = 0.89) scenes comprise a large amount of hardscape. Students had a different preference for landscaping of open study area and leisure time place where the studying area should be designed with vertical natural elements. Shading trees and benches were also highlighted as very important furniture for these places. In terms of spatial organization, the content analysis revealed that these areas should be open and spacious. Places for leisure time need to be decorated with informal landscape design for creating a pleasant view. Designing a landscape with various forms will make these places more pleasant. Scenes of curved paths and colourful plants for these places showed a positive association with student socialization activities.
FelstenG.Where to take a study break on the college campus: an attention restoration theory perspective. J Environ Psychol2009;
29: 160–167.
3.
MoteallehPParsaeeMSheybaniM.Investigating the significance of landscape in designing library by emphasizing on the enhancement of learning. HBRC J2017;
13: 217–222.
4.
KaplanRKaplanSRyanR.With people in mind: design and management of everyday nature.
Washington, DC:
Island Press, 1998.
5.
UlrichRSSimonsRFLositoBDFioritoEMilesMAZelsonM.Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol1991;
11: 201–230.
6.
LiDSullivanWC.Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue. Landscape Urban Plan2016;
148: 149–158.
7.
UlrichR.View through a window may influence recovery. Science1984;
224: 224–225.
8.
KaplanR.The analysis of perception via preference: a strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Plan1985;
12: 161–176.
9.
ZhangHChenBSunZBaoZ.Landscape perception and recreation needs in urban green space in Fuyang, Hangzhou, China. Urban For Urban Green2013;
12: 44–52.
10.
LengenC.The effects of colours, shapes and boundaries of landscapes on perception, emotion and mentalising processes promoting health and well-being. Health Place2015;
35: 166–177.
11.
HananH.Open space as meaningful place for students in ITB campus. Procedia Soc Behav Sci2013;
85: 308–317.
12.
GouZPrasadDLauS.Are green buildings more satisfactory and comfortable?Habitat Int2013;
39: 156–161.
13.
LauSSYGouZLiuY.Healthy campus by open space design: approaches and guidelines. Front Arch Res2014;
3: 452–467.
14.
SrivanitMHokaoK.Evaluating the cooling effects of greening for improving the outdoor thermal environment at an institutional campus in the summer. Build Environ2013;
66: 158–172.
15.
LauSSYYangF.Introducing healing gardens into a compact university campus: design natural space to create healthy and sustainable campuses. Landscape Res2009;
34: 55–81.
16.
LiHLinC.College stress and psychological well-being of Chinese college students. Acta Psychol Sin2003;
35: 222–230.
ClearyAFieldingKSBellSLMurrayZRoikoA.Exploring potential mechanisms involved in the relationship between eudaimonic wellbeing and nature connection. Landscape Urban Plan2017;
158: 119–128.
19.
LottrupLGrahnPStigsdotterUK.Workplace greenery and perceived level of stress: benefits of access to a green outdoor environment at the workplace. Landscape Urban Plan2013;
110: 5–11.
20.
UlrichRS.Visual landscapes and psychological well‐being. Landscape Res1979;
4: 17–23.
21.
WindhorstEWilliamsA. “
It’s like a different world”: natural places, post-secondary students, and mental health. Health Place2015;
34: 241–250.
22.
KuoFESullivanWC.Environment and crime in the inner city: does vegetation reduce crime?Environ Behav2001;
33: 343–367.
23.
WangRZhaoJLiuZ.Consensus in visual preferences: the effects of aesthetic quality and landscape types. Urban For Urban Green2016;
20: 210–217.
24.
López-MartínezF.Visual landscape preferences in Mediterranean areas and their socio-demographic influences. Ecol Eng2017;
104: 205–215.
25.
OzerBBarisME.Landscape design and park users’ preferences. Procedia Soc Behav Sci2013;
82: 604–607.
26.
SevenantMAntropM.The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy2010;
27: 827–842.
27.
TveitMS.Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. J Environ Manage2009;
90: 2882–2888.
28.
SolivaRHunzikerM.How do biodiversity and conservation values relate to landscape preferences? A case study from the Swiss Alps. Biodivers Conserv2009;
18: 2483–2507.
29.
DanielTCMeitnerMM.Representational validity of landscape visualizations: the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. J Environ Psychol2001;
21: 61–72.
30.
HullIRStewartWP.Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. J Environ Psychol1992;
12: 101–114.
31.
KaplanR.Employees’ reactions to nearby nature at their workplace: the wild and the tame. Landscape Urban Plan2007;
82: 17–24.
32.
KaplanRKaplanS.The experience of nature: a psychological perspective.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989.
33.
HamiAMoulaFFMaulanSB.Public preferences toward shopping mall interior landscape design in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Urban For Urban Green2018;
30: 1–7.
34.
MitraALankfordS.Research methods in park, recreation, and leisure services.
Urbana, IL:
Sagamore Publishing, 1999.
35.
De VausD.Surveys in social research.
London and New York:
Routledge, 2013.
36.
SalkindNJ.Encyclopedia of research design.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 2010.
37.
KuoFESullivanWC.Aggression and violence in the inner city: effects of environment via mental fatigue. Environ Behav2001;
33: 543–571.
38.
HamiAMaulanSBMariapanMMalekizadehM.Natural elements spatial configuration and content usage in urban park. Iran Univ Sci Technol2014;
24: 15–23.
39.
PazhouhanfarMKamalM.Effect of predictors of visual preference as characteristics of urban natural landscapes in increasing perceived restorative potential. Urban For Urban Green2014;
13: 145–151.
